DOCSLIB.ORG

Union Station - Queens Quay Transit Link Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Union Station - Queens Quay Transit Link Study City of Toronto Union Station - Queens Quay Transit Link Study Final Report April 2019 Executive Summary The Union Station – Queens Quay Transit waterfront, ridership has grown steadily Link Study considered two technologies for as development along the waterfront enhancing the connection between Union has increased. Today, growth in the East Station and Queens Quay: an expanded Bayfront has resulted in the need to continue streetcar loop at Union Station; or, an expanding transit along the eastern waterfront. Automated People Mover (APM) using the The existing Union Station streetcar loop existing tunnel replacing the existing streetcar. cannot accommodate the demand from new riders, particularly when transit is added to the As the central node of the Waterfront Transit east. In 2010, an Environmental Assessment Network, the Union Station – Queens Quay (EA) was completed on an expansion of the Transit Link provides the means of connecting streetcar loop at Union Station as a means of Canada’s busiest rail station and Toronto’s providing the infrastructure to serve growing waterfront, with its many residences, demand. employers, and cultural and event amenities. Ensuring the Link meets the needs of a In 2016, City of Toronto Council approved the growing population will allow the successful Waterfront Transit Reset; a comprehensive development of the waterfront to continue, study of the needs and options for serving millions of annual commuter, leisure, implementing improved transit along Toronto’s and tourist trips. waterfront including the connection of the waterfront LRT to Union Station. In early Overall, streetcar was found to be preferable 2018, Council directed staff to find an to APM as a means of connecting Union appropriate and implementable solution for Station and the waterfront due to its the Union Station – Queens Quay Transit advantages for the overall waterfront LRT Link, carefully considering suitable options network and user experience benefits. given the importance of the Link and the costs The conclusion of a preferred technology associated with its renewal and expansion. and development of a preliminary design is an important step in the next phases of Due to the extended length of study of this developing the Waterfront Transit Network in project, transit in the East Bayfront has been Toronto. significantly delayed. Development in the East Bayfront has therefore preceded the Background necessary transit to adequately support it. Currently, Port Lands flood protection works Since the opening of the Union Station are underway to facilitate further development streetcar loop in 1990 first established a of the east waterfront. higher order transit connection along the Arup Canada Inc City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 Options Development • Increased accessibility from a user experience perspective due to a lack of The direction by Council began the focused transfer to the East Bayfront and Central comparative study of the EA-approved Waterfront; expanded streetcar loop and an alternative option to repurpose the tunnel with an • Strongest amount of flexibility for the future Automated People Mover (APM) through the Waterfront Transit Network implementation Union Station – Queens Quay Link Transit and TTC service planning; and, Study, which was proposed as a potentially • No substantial cost disadvantages. cost-effective alternative. Various technical studies since the completion Public Consultation of the EA determined that these were the two preferred technologies to carry forward Public consultation also showed that the to preliminary design. The Study has been consulted public overwhelmingly supported led by the City of Toronto with a technical the streetcar option. The APM presented advisory team from the City, TTC, and advantages from a constructability Waterfront Toronto, and contribution from perspective with shorter construction timelines Metrolinx. due to minimal impacts below the rail viaduct at Union Station, but both options are feasible Designs & Costs and construction risks are well-understood because of current construction efforts at Following an options screening process Union Station. and preliminary user experience and transportation assessment, the two preferred Next Steps options identified to carry through design development were (1) a modification of the To proceed with the detailed design and existing streetcar loop at Union Station to construction of a preferred option, the City of accommodate additional streetcars, per the Toronto and partner agencies will require: EA-approved option, or (2) the repurposing of the streetcar tunnel and the introduction • Approval to proceed from City Council and of a new APM connecting Union Station to funds for the next phases of work; streetcar along Queens Quay. • A potential EA Addendum given the refinements to the station configuration and Stations were designed to the latest standards possible relocation of the streetcar portal and integrated with the Union Station retail concourse, with the opportunity for integration east of Bay Street; with existing and future developments at • Advancing the design to at least the 30% the north and south ends of the Link. Both stage and updating the cost estimate to the designs had very similar capital and operating AACE-3 or CIQS-C level, fully assessing costs. Notably, the streetcar better serves the risks with construction; East Bayfront and wider waterfront while the APM serves a smaller geographic area with • A review of delivery options with funding more concentrated ridership. partners; and, • An assessment of the impacts to pedestrian Following a comparative evaluation of the circulation and access during construction. two options, streetcar was identified as the preferred option for the following reasons: City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 Artist’s depiction of future Queens Quay streetcar station ©DTAH City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 Table of Contents 1 Overview and Background 6 1.1 Study Purpose 1.2 Importance and Implications 1.3 Primary Study Area 1.4 Projected Ridership 2 Options Development 10 2.1 Technologies 2.2 Options Considered 2.3 Preliminary Evaluation Framework 2.4 Options Screening 2.5 Preferred Options for Design Development 3 Concept Design & Evaluation 16 3.1 Concept Designs 3.2 Evaluation Process 3.3 Evaluation Outcomes 3.4 Risks 4 Public Consultation 33 4.1 Stakeholder Advisory Committee Input 4.2 Public Information Centre Input 4.3 Overall Outcomes 5 Conclusions & Next Steps 36 Appendices Activity along Queens Quay ©Waterfront Toronto 1 Overview & Background Overview & Background 1.1 Study Purpose For these reasons, this transit link does and will serve not only a high volume of riders, The purpose of the Union Station – Queens but those who may be occasional or first-time Quay Link Study (the Study) is to confirm an visitors to the city. To continue supporting appropriate and implementable solution for population and employment as well as a the connection of Union Station to Queens growing tourism sector, the Study carefully Quay and the East Bayfront. The output of the evaluated these unique considerations. Study is intended to inform decisions about next steps in advancing higher order transit 1.3 Primary Study Area to the East Bayfront and other communities that are currently underserved by transit, by The primary study area for this segment of the recommending a preferred technology for the Waterfront Transit Network is the Bay Street link. corridor between Union Station and Queens Quay, and the Queens Quay corridor between 1.2 Importance and Implications York Street and Freeland Street. This is shown in Figure 1. The Union Station – Queens Quay Transit Link (USQQL) is a unique transit project in Beyond the study area, consideration was Toronto for a variety of reasons: had over the course of the study for the Jack Layton Ferry Terminal south of Queens Quay • Though it represents a short distance and the wider Waterfront Transit Network, (approximately 550m), the link serves a very owing to the operational impacts in the high volume of riders in a high traffic area of broader network of the USQQL. The Initial the city. Business Case considers the full Waterfront Transit Network. • It is a vital connection to enable the development of the waterfront east and west. The growth and success of the wider Waterfront Transit Network relies on the strength and capacity of the link between the waterfront and Union Station. • The link connects Canada’s busiest multi- modal rail hub with local transit and other transportation services including Billy Bishop Airport. • The link is of importance to travellers of all types, including commuters and all-day riders such as tourists and special event riders. Tourists and special event riders are a unique consideration given the high number of venues in the area including Scotiabank Arena, Harbourfront Centre, and the Toronto Islands/Jack Layton Ferry Terminal. Figure 1: Primary study area City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 7 1.4 Projected Ridership Ridership in the Bay Street corridor and along Queens Quay is anticipated to grow substantially by 2041. Already, growth has resulted in challenges comfortably accommodating passengers at the existing Union Station loop. The figures to the right show existing versus future transit demand in the Bay Street corridor based on City of Toronto models. Currently, approximately 1,000 riders use the existing southbound streetcar service, and approximately 1,500 riders use the northbound service, between Union Station and Queens Quay in the AM Peak Hour. Additionally, thousands of walk trips are made along Bay Street and in the PATH network between Union Station and destinations at Queens Quay and Bay Street. By 2041, transit demand in the corridor is projected to be 4,000 to 8,000 passengers By 2041, transit southbound in the AM peak hour based on demand in the corridor estimates from the City of Toronto GTAv4 is projected to be 4,000 EMME model (Appendix A1). Demand varies to 8,000 passengers based on the technology of the USQQL.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 3. Description of the Potentially Affected Environment
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3. Description of the Potentially Affected Environment The purpose of Chapter 3 is to present an overview of the environment potentially affected by the SWP to create familiarity with issues to be addressed and the complexity of the environment likely to be affected by the Project. All aspects of the environment within the Project Study Area (see Figure 2- 1 in Chapter 2) relevant to the Project and its potential effects have been described in this chapter. The chapter is divided into three sections which capture different components of the environment: 1. Physical environment: describes the coastal and geotechnical processes acting on the Project Study Area; 2. Natural environment: describes terrestrial and aquatic habitat and species; and, 3. Socio-economic environment: describes existing and planned land use, land ownership, recreation, archaeology, cultural heritage, and Aboriginal interests. The description of the existing environment is based on the information from a number of studies, which have been referenced in the relevant sections. Additional field surveys were undertaken where appropriate. Where applicable, future environmental conditions are also discussed. For most components of the environment, existing conditions within the Project Area or Project Study Area are described. Where appropriate, conditions within the broader Regional Study Area are also described. 3.1 Physical Environment Structures and property within slopes, valleys and shorelines may be susceptible to damage from natural processes such as erosion, slope failures and dynamic beaches. These processes become natural hazards when people and property locate in areas where they normally occur (MNR, 2001). Therefore, understanding physical natural processes is vital to developing locally-appropriate Alternatives in order to meet Project Objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • 3131 Lower Don River West Lower Don River West 4.0 DESCRIPTION
    Lower Don River West Environmental Study Report Remedial Flood Protection Project 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF LOWER DON 4.1 The Don River Watershed The Don River is one of more than sixty rivers and streams flowing south from the Oak Ridges Moraine. The River is approximately 38 km long and outlets into the Keating Channel, which then conveys the flows into Toronto Harbour and Lake Historic Watershed Ontario. The entire drainage basin of the Don urbanization of the river's headwaters in York River is 360 km2. Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2, on the Region began in the early 1980s and continues following pages, describe the existing and future today. land use conditions within the Don River Watershed. Hydrologic changes in the watershed began when settlers converted the forests to agricultural fields; For 200 years, the Don Watershed has been many streams were denuded even of bank side subject to intense pressures from human vegetation. Urban development then intensified settlement. These have fragmented the river the problems of warmer water temperatures, valley's natural branching pattern; degraded and erosion, and water pollution. Over the years often destroyed its once rich aquatic and during the three waves of urban expansion, the terrestrial wildlife habitat; and polluted its waters Don River mouth, originally an extensive delta with raw sewage, industrial/agricultural marsh, was filled in and the lower portion of the chemicals, metals and other assorted river was straightened. contaminants. Small Don River tributaries were piped and Land clearing, settlement, and urbanization have buried, wetlands were "reclaimed," and springs proceeded in three waves in the Don River were lost.
    [Show full text]
  • PATH Underground Walkway
    PATH Marker Signs ranging from Index T V free-standing outdoor A I The Fairmont Royal York Hotel VIA Rail Canada H-19 pylons to door decals Adelaide Place G-12 InterContinental Toronto Centre H-18 Victory Building (80 Richmond 1 Adelaide East N-12 Hotel D-19 The Hudson’s Bay Company L-10 St. West) I-10 identify entrances 11 Adelaide West L-12 The Lanes I-11 W to the walkway. 105 Adelaide West I-13 K The Ritz-Carlton Hotel C-16 WaterPark Place J-22 130 Adelaide West H-12 1 King West M-15 Thomson Building J-10 95 Wellington West H-16 Air Canada Centre J-20 4 King West M-14 Toronto Coach Terminal J-5 100 Wellington West (Canadian In many elevators there is Allen Lambert Galleria 11 King West M-15 Toronto-Dominion Bank Pavilion Pacific Tower) H-16 a small PATH logo (Brookfield Place) L-17 130 King West H-14 J-14 200 Wellington West C-16 Atrium on Bay L-5 145 King West F-14 Toronto-Dominion Bank Tower mounted beside the Aura M-2 200 King West E-14 I-16 Y button for the floor 225 King West C-14 Toronto-Dominion Centre J-15 Yonge-Dundas Square N-6 B King Subway Station N-14 TD Canada Trust Tower K-18 Yonge Richmond Centre N-10 leading to the walkway. Bank of Nova Scotia K-13 TD North Tower I-14 100 Yonge M-13 Bay Adelaide Centre K-12 L TD South Tower I-16 104 Yonge M-13 Bay East Teamway K-19 25 Lower Simcoe E-20 TD West Tower (100 Wellington 110 Yonge M-12 Next Destination 10-20 Bay J-22 West) H-16 444 Yonge M-2 PATH directional signs tell 220 Bay J-16 M 25 York H-19 390 Bay (Munich Re Centre) Maple Leaf Square H-20 U 150 York G-12 you which building you’re You are in: J-10 MetroCentre B-14 Union Station J-18 York Centre (16 York St.) G-20 in and the next building Hudson’s Bay Company 777 Bay K-1 Metro Hall B-15 Union Subway Station J-18 York East Teamway H-19 Bay Wellington Tower K-16 Metro Toronto Convention Centre you’ll be entering.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes Queens Quay Construction Liaison Committee Meeting #12 Summary Wednesday, February 6, 2013 1:00Pm – 2:30Pm Waterfront Toronto – 20 Bay Street
    Meeting Minutes Queens Quay Construction Liaison Committee Meeting #12 Summary Wednesday, February 6, 2013 1:00pm – 2:30pm Waterfront Toronto – 20 Bay Street Attendance: Kelly Gorman - (250/251,260,270 Queens Quay West) Pina Mallozi – (Waterfront Toronto) Chris Hodgson – (Harbourfront Centre) Luigi Cifa (Eastern Construction) Blair Keetch - (PawsWay) Robert Pasut (Eastern Construction) Carol Jolly – (Waterfront BIA) Curtis Keen (Eastern Construction) Peter Wood – (270 Queens Quay) Levco Wynnyckyj (Eastern Construction) Pam Mazza – (TICA/QCYC) Simon Karam (Waterfront Toronto) Ulla Colgrass (YQNA) James Roche (Waterfront Toronto) Diego Sinagoga (Toronto Transit Commission) Samantha Gileno (Waterfront Toronto) Henry Byres – (City of Toronto BIA Office) Maggie Mu (Toronto Hydro) Vicki Barron – (Waterfront Reg. Trust) Lee Morrison – (PowerLine Plus) Jen Chan – (Councillor Vaughan’s Office) Linda Leonard – (PowerLine Plus) Opening Remarks & Welcome – Samantha Gileno Agenda 1) Project Update Approvals & Permits Construction Tenders Review Completed Construction Activities Eastern Construction/ Waterfront Toronto TTC Demolition Site Services (Storm and Sanitary) Peter Slip Bridge York Street Layby Bell Update Toronto Hydro Update TTC Portal 2) Upcoming Construction Activities Eastern Construction/ Waterfront Toronto TTC Demolition Site Services (Storm and Sanitary) Peter Slip Bridge York Street Layby Bell Update Toronto Hydro Update TTC Portal 3) Traffic Management Update 4) Communication Survey 5) CLC Member Feedback/ Discussion 1) Project Updates: Approvals and Permits (Pina Mallozzi) 1) February 1 – We received our full Construction Permit for the Queens Quay project. 2) Traffic Management Plan 1B3 – Was approved by the City 3) Spadina Loop - Discussion is underway with the TTC regarding methodologies and scheduling for this work Construction Tenders & Construction Activities: (James Roche) Tenders: a.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 5 Has Been Updated to Reflect the Specific Additions/Revisions Outlined in the Errata to the Environmental Project Report, Dated November, 2017
    DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY This Revised Final Environmental Project Report – Volume 5 has been updated to reflect the specific additions/revisions outlined in the Errata to the Environmental Project Report, dated November, 2017. As such, it supersedes the previous Final version dated October, 2017. The report dated October, 2017 (“Report”), which includes its text, tables, figures and appendices) has been prepared by Gannett Fleming Canada ULC (“Gannett Fleming”) and Morrison Hershfield Limited (“Morrison Hershfield”) (“Consultants”) for the exclusive use of Metrolinx. Consultants disclaim any liability or responsibility to any person or party other than Metrolinx for loss, damage, expense, fines, costs or penalties arising from or in connection with the Report or its use or reliance on any information, opinion, advice, conclusion or recommendation contained in it. To the extent permitted by law, Consultants also excludes all implied or statutory warranties and conditions. In preparing the Report, the Consultants have relied in good faith on information provided by third party agencies, individuals and companies as noted in the Report. The Consultants have assumed that this information is factual and accurate and has not independently verified such information except as required by the standard of care. The Consultants accept no responsibility or liability for errors or omissions that are the result of any deficiencies in such information. The opinions, advice, conclusions and recommendations in the Report are valid as of the date of the Report and are based on the data and information collected by the Consultants during their investigations as set out in the Report. The opinions, advice, conclusions and recommendations in the Report are based on the conditions encountered by the Consultants at the site(s) at the time of their investigations, supplemented by historical information and data obtained as described in the Report.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 5, Eglinton Crosstown LRT, Page 18 Credit: Metrolinx
    2020 No. 5, Eglinton Crosstown LRT, Page 18 Credit: Metrolinx Top100 Projects 2020 One Man Changes the Face of 2020’s Top 10 Top100 Projects — 2020 f not for one individual, this year’s Top100 may have looked An annual report inserted in familiar. ReNew Canada’s I When this year’s research process began, there was little change within this year’s Top 10, as many of the nation’s January/February 2020 issue megaprojects were still in progress. Significant progress has been made on all of the projects we saw grace the Top 10 in our report last year, but completion dates extend beyond the end of the MANAGING Andrew Macklin 2019 calendar year. EDITOR [email protected] Enter Matt Clark, Metrolinx’s Chief Capital Officer, who took GROUP over the position from Peter Zuk. You see, when Zuk was in charge Todd Latham PUBLISHER of publicly expressing capital budgets, particularly in the context of the GO Expansion project, he had done so by breaking down PUBLISHER Nick Krukowski the $13.5 billion spend by corridor. That breakdown led to the full expansion represented by as many as nine projects in the content ART DIRECTOR AND Donna Endacott SENIORDESIGN of the Top100. Clark does it differently. In the quarterly reports made public ASSOCIATE following Metrolinx board meetings, the capital projects for the Simran Chattha EDITOR GO Expansion are broken down into three allotments (on corridor, off corridor, and early works). The result? Six less GO Expansion CONTENT AND MARKETING Todd Westcott projects in the Top100, but two new projects in our Top 10 MANAGER including a new number one.
    [Show full text]
  • Peer Review EA Study Design Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport BBTCA
    Imagine the result Peer Review – EA Study Design Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport (BBTCA) Runway Expansion and Introduction of Jet Aircraft Final Report August 2015 BBTCA Peer Review of EA Study Design Report ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Background 1-1 1.2 Current Assignment 1-3 2.0 PEER REVIEW APPROACH 2-1 2.1 Methodology 2-1 3.0 FINDINGS OF PEER REVIEW OF AECOM’S DRAFT STUDY DESIGN REPORT 3-1 3.1 EA Process and Legislation 3-1 3.2 Public Consultation & Stakeholder Engagement 3-1 3.3 Air Quality 3-2 3.4 Public Health 3-5 3.5 Noise 3-6 3.6 Natural Environment 3-10 3.7 Socio-Economic Conditions 3-11 3.8 Land Use & Built Form 3-14 3.9 Marine Physical Conditions and Water Quality 3-15 3.10 Transportation 3-15 3.11 Archaeology & Cultural Heritage 3-18 4.0 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS 4-1 APPENDIX A Presentation Given to the Working Group (22 June 2015) B Presentation of Draft Phase I Peer Review Report Results (13 July 2015) i BBTCA Peer Review of EA Study Design Report ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AERMOD Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling System ARCADIS ARCADIS Canada Inc. BBTCA Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport CALPUFF Meteorological and Air Quality Monitoring System CCG Canadian Coast Guard CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act CO Carbon Monoxide COPA Canadian Owners and Pilots Association dBA Decibel Values of Sounds EA Environmental Assessment EC Environment Canada GBE Government Business Enterprise GWC Greater Waterfront Coalition HEAT Habitat and Environmental Assessment Tool INM Integrated Noise Model Ldn Day-Night
    [Show full text]
  • Caledonia GO Station Environmental Assessment Study
    Caledonia GO Station Environmental Assessment Study Public Meeting #1 Summary Report Metrolinx R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 6990 Creditview Road, Unit 2 Mississauga ON L5N 8R9 CANADA August 2015 300034767.0000 Metrolinx i Caledonia GO Station Environmental Assessment Study Public Meeting #1 Summary Report August 2015 Distribution List No. of Hard PDF Email Organization Name Copies 0 Yes Yes Metrolinx Record of Revisions Revision Date Description 0 July 2015 Draft Submission to Metrolinx 1 August 2015 Final Submission to Metrolinx R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Report Prepared By: Ashley Gallaugher Environmental Scientist AG:mp Report Reviewed By: Jennifer Vandermeer, P.Eng. Environmental Assessment Lead Jim Georgas, C.E.T. Transit Manager R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 300034767.0000 034767_Caledonia GO Station TPAP EA Public Meeting 1 Summary Report.docx Metrolinx ii Caledonia GO Station Environmental Assessment Study Public Meeting #1 Summary Report August 2015 Executive Summary PROJECT Caledonia GO Station, Transit Project Assessment Process Environmental Assessment (EA) Study PROPONENT Metrolinx ACTIVITY Public Meeting #1, Open House Format DATE, TIME & May 26, 2015 LOCATION 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. York Memorial Collegiate 2690 Eglinton Avenue West, Toronto, ON, M6M 1T9 PROJECT TEAM Elise Croll, Metrolinx MEMBERS Trevor Anderson, Metrolinx PRESENT Carolina Daza Ortiz, Metrolinx Tania Gautam, Metrolinx Georgina Collymore, Metrolinx Vanessa Anders, Metrolinx Doug Keenie R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited (Burnside) Jim Georgas, Burnside Jennifer Vandermeer, Burnside Debanjan Mookerjea, Burnside • To describe the existing study corridor and opportunities. PURPOSE • To introduce Metrolinx’ transportation goals. • To describe the proposed study and purpose. • To present the proposed infrastructure for the new Caledonia GO Station.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment 4 – Assessment of Ontario Line
    EX9.1 Attachment 4 – Assessment of Ontario Line As directed by City Council in April 2019, City and TTC staff have assessed the Province’s proposed Ontario Line. The details of this assessment are provided in this attachment. 1. Project Summary 1.1. Project Description The Ontario Line was included as part of the 2019 Ontario Budget1 as a transit project that will cover similar study areas as the Relief Line South and North, as well as a western extension. The proposed project is a 15.5-kilometre higher-order transit line with 15 stations, connecting from Exhibition GO station to Line 5 at Don Mills Road and Eglinton Avenue East, near the Science Centre station, as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Ontario Line Proposal (source: Metrolinx IBC) Since April 2019, technical working groups comprising staff from the City, TTC, Metrolinx, Infrastructure Ontario and the Ministry of Transportation met regularly to understand alignment and station location options being considered for the Ontario 1 http://budget.ontario.ca/2019/contents.html Attachment 4 - Assessment of Ontario Line Page 1 of 20 Line. Discussions also considered fleet requirements, infrastructure design criteria, and travel demand modelling. Metrolinx prepared an Initial Business Case (IBC) that was publicly posted on July 25, 2019.2 The IBC compared the Ontario Line and Relief Line South projects against a Business As Usual scenario. The general findings by Metrolinx were that "both Relief Line South and Ontario Line offer significant improvements compared to a Business As Usual scenario, generating $3.4 billion and $7.4 billion worth of economic benefits, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation 7:20 Questions of Clarification 7:30 Facilitated Open House 8:30 Adjourn
    Waterfront Transit “Reset” Phase 2 Study Public Information & Consultation Meetings September 18 & 26, 2017 Agenda 6:00 Open House 6:30 Agenda Review, Opening Remarks and Introductions 6:40 Study Overview and Presentation 7:20 Questions of Clarification 7:30 Facilitated Open House 8:30 Adjourn 2 Project Study Team • A Partnership of: • The project study team is led by a joint City-TTC- Waterfront Toronto Executive Steering Committee • Metrolinx, City of Mississauga and MiWay have also provided input on relevant aspects of the study 3 What’s the Purpose of this Meeting? • Present the waterfront transit network travel demand considerations to 2041 • Present and gather feedback on options assessment for transit improvements in key areas of the network, including: – Union Station – Queens Quay Connection – Humber Bay Link – Bathurst - Fleet - Lake Shore – Queens Quay Intersection • Report the overall draft findings of the Phase 2 Study, priorities, and draft directions for further study prior to reporting to Executive Committee and Council 4 Study Timeline 5 Phase 1 Recap To view the Phase 1 Report and other background material, please visit the City’s website: www.toronto.ca/waterfronttransit 6 Vision Provide high quality transit that will integrate waterfront communities, jobs, and destinations and link the waterfront to the broader City and regional transportation network Objectives Connect waterfront communities locally and to Downtown with reliable and convenient transit service: • Promote and support residential and employment growth
    [Show full text]
  • TTC Typography History
    With the exception of Eglinton Station, 11 of the 12 stations of The intention of using Helvetica and Univers is unknown, however The Toronto Subway Font (Designer Unknown) the original Yonge Subway line have been renovated extensively. with the usage of the latter on the design of the Spadina Subway in Based on Futura by Paul Renner (1928) Some stations retained the original typefaces but with tighter 1978, it may have been an internal decision to try and assimilate tracking and subtle differences in weight, while other stations subsequent renovations of existing stations in the aging Yonge and were renovated so poorly there no longer is a sense of simplicity University lines. The TTC avoided the usage of the Toronto Subway seen with the 1954 designs in terms of typographical harmony. font on new subway stations for over two decades. ABCabc RQKS Queen Station, for example, used Helvetica (LT Std 75 Bold) in such The Sheppard Subway in 2002 saw the return of the Toronto Subway an irresponsible manner; it is repulsively inconsistent with all the typeface as it is used for the names of the stations posted on ABCabc RQKS other stations, and due to the renovators preserving the original platfrom level. Helvetica became the primary typeface for all TTC There are subtle differences between the two typefaces, notably the glass tile trim, the font weight itself looks botched and unsuitable. wayfinding signages and informational material system-wide. R, Q, K, and S; most have different terminals, spines, and junctions. ST CLAIR SUMMERHILL BLOOR DANGER DA N GER Danger DO NOT ENTER Do Not Enter Do Not Enter DAVISVILLE ST CL AIR SUMMERHILL ROSEDALE BLOOR EGLINTON DAVISVILLE ST CLAIR SUMMERHILL ROSEDALE BLOOR EGLINTON DAVISVILLE ST CLAIR SUMMERHILL ROSEDALE BLOOR The specially-designed Toronto Subway that embodied the spirit of modernism and replaced with a brutal mix of Helvetica and YONGE SUBWAY typeface graced the walls of the 12 stations, progress.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fish Communities of the Toronto Waterfront: Summary and Assessment 1989 - 2005
    THE FISH COMMUNITIES OF THE TORONTO WATERFRONT: SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT 1989 - 2005 SEPTEMBER 2008 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank the many technical staff, past and present, of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Ministry of Natural Resources who diligently collected electrofishing data for the past 16 years. The completion of this report was aided by the Canada Ontario Agreement (COA). 1 Jason P. Dietrich, 1 Allison M. Hennyey, 1 Rick Portiss, 1 Gord MacPherson, 1 Kelly Montgomery and 2 Bruce J. Morrison 1 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON, M3N 1S4, Canada 2 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Lake Ontario Fisheries Management Unit, Glenora Fisheries Station, Picton, ON, K0K 2T0, Canada © Toronto and Region Conservation 2008 ABSTRACT Fish community metrics collected for 16 years (1989 — 2005), using standardized electrofishing methods, throughout the greater Toronto region waterfront, were analyzed to ascertain the current state of the fish community with respect to past conditions. Results that continue to indicate a degraded or further degrading environment include an overall reduction in fish abundance, a high composition of benthivores, an increase in invasive species, an increase in generalist species biomass, yet a decrease in specialist species biomass, and a decrease in cool water Electrofishing in the Toronto Harbour thermal guild species biomass in embayments. Results that may indicate a change in a positive community health direction include no significant changes to species richness, a marked increase in diversity in embayments, a decline in non-native species in embayments and open coasts (despite the invasion of round goby), a recent increase in native species biomass, fluctuating native piscivore dynamics, increased walleye abundance, and a reduction in the proportion of degradation tolerant species.
    [Show full text]